The accuracy of self‐reported regulatory data: The case of coal mine dust

Abstract

Coal-mine owners are required to measure miner exposures to respirable dust so that compliance with Federal health regulations can be monitored. This study analyzes the problem of possible underreporting of dust exposures. Using two statistical approaches, data for three mining occupations in 54 large underground coal mines during 1976-1978 are examined for evidence of underreporting. First, regression estimates compare dust concentrations reported by coal-mine owners with those reported by government health inspectors. Then, the statistical distribution of concentrations reported by coal-mine owners are examined for the size and nature of their deviation from log-normality. Both approaches suggest widespread underreporting.

Coal workers' pneumoconiosis in the United States: regional differences 40 years after implementation of the 1969 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act

“…We used MSHA compliance dust concentration data. It is important to note as a limitation that the validity of these data has been periodically questioned 11 21. However, if any bias present in the exposure data is systematic and non-differential with respect to MSHA district, the internal associations we present should be unaffected.…”

Policy evaluation: Better living through research

“…This again provides incentives to underreport. Research presented to MSHA in 1983, published in 1984, and confirmed in 1990 clearly demonstrated substantial under-reporting [Boden and Gold 1984;Seixas et al, 19901. MSHA ignored these findings (possibly because the low reported concentrations made the agency look more effective) until presented with evidence of blatant tampering in 1991.…”

Tampering with dust samples in coal mines (again)

“…Statistical comparison of operator and MSHA samples also reveals a systematic bias. Boden and Gold [1984] demonstrated that low weight samples (less than 0 . 3 mg/m3) were significantly and consistently more frequent in operator measurements than they were in MSHA measurements.…”